Requirement of double Normalizing of SA-516 Gr.70

[Jayesh Parekh]

In our recent project i encounter one problem.

Material Grade : SA-516 Gr.70 Supply condition : Normalized

Dished end : Ellipsodial

Thickness : 45 mm

Forming process : Cold forming

Dished end have one cordal seam

Impact required at : -46 deg. C

so during cold forming vendor need one intermediate normalizing. and as per client requirement one more normalizing performed after complete dished end forming. So, total 2 time normalizing have to perform.

So, my question is ; 

(1) During plate order i have to take 2 normalizing cycle simulation ? Yes Or No? With Reason

(2) May I take benefit of Clause UCS-85 (i) of ASME sec-8 Div.1?

(3) Is same clause applicable for welding?

(4) And If i will perform double normalizing then I have to simply double the normalizing time or 2 separate normalizing i have to perform?

(5) What will be effect on weld and base material after 2 time Normalizing?

(6) if any one encountered such issues . please help to solve 

[Prakash Hegde]

Hi!

With multiple normalising.UTS gets deteoriates

Accordingly  ddelivery condition.of.plate.you req UTS on higher side than min requirement

Ii) Generaly for highet.thick weld.seam multiple Normalising.ll.reduce UTS as such Normalising criteria.is not.addressed in.Sec IX.or.Div 1 of ASME

THATS why most of the designer recomend Crown.n Petal.for higher thk.Dends

Regards

Hegde

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

--
https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/f9744a58-4c34-4c96-93f8-ff304e519db5%40googlegroups.com.

[Prashant Rane]

Jayesh

I do agree with Prakash UTS will be affected on negative side hence your base material should have greater UTS during procurement.

Further to that

As you mentioned

" so during cold forming vendor need one intermediate normalizing. and as per client requirement one more normalizing performed after complete dished end forming. So, total 2 time normalizing have to perform."

It is interesting to understand

1.  what do you mean by "intermediate normalizing" ?

2.  When the dish is cold formed why is the vendor requiring normalizing.  Is your designer asking for same.  Can't both vendor and client requirements be satisfied in one normalizing

Answer to your other questions is

(1) During plate order i have to take 2 normalizing cycle simulation ? Yes Or No? With Reason

You will have to test the sample to meet UCS 85 requirement after 2 cycles of normalizing

(2) May I take benefit of Clause UCS-85 (i) of ASME sec-8 Div.1?

You will have to test the sample to meet UCS 85 requirement after 2 cycles of normalizing because you may not be able to maintain the same cycle on the dish as that of the plate manufacturer

(3) Is same clause applicable for welding?

PQR shall be qualified with 2 normalizing cycles as heat treatment condition.  Since it is normalizing thickness restrictions will not apply.

(4) And If i will perform double normalizing then I have to simply double the normalizing time or 2 separate normalizing i have to perform?

Either way is acceptable there is no restriction as such.

(5) What will be effect on weld and base material after 2 time Normalizing?

Material and weld properties will change (reduce)

Regards,

 

Prashant P Rane

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/177254843.162832.1567147604899%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Kannayeram Gnanapandithan]

Why intermediate Normalizing required???. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/177254843.162832.1567147604899%40mail.yahoo.com.

[nithind...@gmail.com]

Hi

We had faced this concern couple of times in our previous projects. Yes base material will lose strength when u apply such heat treatments. Best solution for this is to order plate directly from mill with end finish requirements (such as double normalising + SPWHT, if any). 

If u aren’t able to approach mills check for available plates having tensile on the higher side, test it with simulation of double normalising. If the results satisfactory then you may utilise the plates for forming. 

Client requirements overrule the code requirements hence you have to comply and cannot take relaxation on it based on code.

If the dished end manufacture wants to perform intermediate normalising then it cannot be considered as normalising after forming. Hence client requirement of normalising after forming requires to be performed separately. 

If the dished end has long seam then ensure your PQR is qualified with double normalising or single normalising with aggregate time for both cycles (check specs of client if it is accepted, sometime client will specify that it has to be performed separately). 

During double normalising weld will lose its strength exorbitantly, hence to achieve required minimum strength you have to utilise consumables with higher strength. 

Consult consumable suppliers they will be able to assist you with right consumables. 

Hope you are clear now.

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/177254843.162832.1567147604899%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Souravbohray]

this is all because of asme sec 8 div1 ucs 85 , ug 85

1.if you didint purchase  2 normalise plate + pwht than when you doing simulation test its get chances of fail so its  for safe side purchase plate from mill  already fulfill this condition its give confidence for simulation .if you have same kind of palte at your fabrication workshop try this with non 2 normalised + non pwht plate you will get result alter to your requirements

same concern for wps  .

[Souravbohray]

but why is there need of intermediate normalizing ?

On Friday, 30 August 2019 11:51:17 UTC+5:30, Jayesh Parekh wrote: